KEYLAND DEVELOPMENTS LTD

BARTIN FARMHOUSE

STRUCTURAL WALKOVER SURVEY

February 2017 DATE ISSUED: February 2017 JOB NUMBER: SH11840 REPORT NUMBER: 4a

KEYLAND DEVELOPMENTS LTD

BARTIN FARMHOUSE

Structural Walkover Survey

PREPARED BY:

Jon Rimmer Associate Director

CHECKED BY:

Greg Whitmore Technical Director

APPROVED BY:

Jon Rimmer Associate Director

This report has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the Contract with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client and Wardell Armstrong LLP accept no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known.

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Wardell Armstrong LLP. 1 STRUCTURAL WALKOVER SURVEY – BARTIN, (INCLUDES DRAINAGE AND ACCESS)

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Keyland Developments Ltd are proposing to redevelop the farm buildings known as Bartin, located on Nether Lane, Bradshaw, near Bilberry Reservoir, which is close to the village of Holme in West Yorkshire. Wardell Armstrong were instructed to survey the buildings, which comprise of an old farm house, barn and small outbuilding, reporting on the form of construction and present condition.

1.1.2 The walkover survey was undertaken on 5th July 2016 by one of Wardell Armstrong’s Associate Directors.

1.1.3 In the descriptions which follow, the terms “north”, “south”, “west” and “east” are used, with the entrance to the farm house facing south and the entrance to the barn facing east.

1.1.4 At the time of the site visit, the weather was dry, visibility was good there was full access to the area around the buildings.

1.1.5 Photographs from the site visit are provided in Appendix A.

1.2 Description

1.2.1 There are two buildings that make up the property known as Bartin, a two storey farm house and an adjacent barn. Both are stone built with a pitched, stone covered roof.

1.2.2 The external walls appear to be solid stone, approximately 9” thick.

1.2.3 The window and door openings in all elevations have stone lintels and stone window sills. The majority of the ground floor windows have been blocked up with stonework in the past. Neither building has downpipes.

1.2.4 The farm house has localised brick wall thickening internally at lower levels and some internal walls remain. The chimney stack of the farm house is located on the western elevation.

1.2.5 The roof structure of the farm house was not visible but is thought to be similar to the barn roof. The barn roof is of timber truss construction with rafters and purlins supporting the roofing stone. The timber structure is supported by the stone walls and is built-in to each gable end.

1.2.6 Both buildings have earth/broken stone floors. The inside of the house is in a bad state of repair and is not currently habitable. 1.3 Observations

General

1.3.1 All walls are showing signs of movement to a greater or lesser extent.

1.3.2 Door frames were in poor condition.

Farm House

1.3.3 Rear (north) elevation showing minor signs of movement with no significant defects.

1.3.4 Eastern Gable Wall shows significant bowing and is restrained at first floor level. At ground floor level the wall bows outwards and above the first floor level the wall is bowing inwards. Significant movement is indicated by cracks appearing at eaves level.

1.3.5 Front (south) elevation showing significant signs of movement around first floor windows. Sections of the upper wall now protrude significantly.

1.3.6 Western Gable Wall (including chimney stack) is listing away from the building and significant cracks are evident at the joints at eaves level. The wall is restrained at first floor level.

1.3.7 The roof was not accessible or visible from the inside but from external observations the roof is sagging significantly and showing signs of failure.

Outbuilding

1.3.8 The rear wall is partially collapsed and the roof has become separated from the farm house.

1.3.9 Exposed roof timbers have rotted away.

1.3.10 The western wall has a partially repaired hole at ground level.

Barn

1.3.11 Rear (west) elevation showing minor signs of movement with no significant defects.

1.3.12 Northern Gable Wall showing minor signs of movement with no significant defects.

1.3.13 Front (east) elevation showing minor signs of movement with no significant defects.

1.3.14 Southern Gable Wall showing minor signs of movement with no significant defects.

1.3.15 Internally localised repairs are required to the walls.

1.3.16 Roof timbers are showing significant signs of woodworm infestation and rot to most timbers. 1.4 **Recommendations for remedial works**

1.4.1 Appendix B contains a sketch drawing showing the following recommendations.

1.4.2 House Rear (north) Wall – underpin to prevent further movement

1.4.3 House Eastern Gable Wall – fully dismantle and rebuild on new foundations

1.4.4 House Front (south) Wall – underpin to prevent further movement; dismantle to first floor level and rebuild.

1.4.5 House Western Gable Wall - underpin to prevent further movement; dismantle to first floor level and rebuild.

1.4.6 House Roof - new roof timbers required.

1.4.7 Outbuilding rear wall - to be dismantled and rebuilt on new footings.

1.4.8 Outbuilding western elevation - to be underpinned and repaired locally

1.4.9 Outbuilding Roof - requires new timbers.

1.4.10 Barn Walls – all walls require underpinning to prevent further movement

1.4.11 Barn Roof – requires new timbers

1.4.12 Barn Internally – localised repairs required to walls.

1.5 **Observations based on proposed development**

1.5.1 It is understood that there are plans to refurbish the farm house and convert the barn into accommodation, linking the two buildings to provide a single dwelling.

1.5.2 As regards the structural repairs to the house, the shell of the building will be suitable for refurbishment subject to the necessary requirements and approvals from the relevant authorities and building control.

1.5.3 The minor repairs, underpinning and new roof timbers would provide a structurally stable shell that would facilitate occupation. A first floor could be added by supporting the new floor with a structural frame off new foundations.

1.5.4 Any new link buildings would need to be self-supporting.

1.5.5 Ground investigation would be required to allow foundation calculations to be undertaken. It will be necessary to carry out calculations to confirm the structural adequacy of any alterations to the existing buildings once further scheme proposals are available. This would for example include the sizing of steelwork for any new openings. 2. ACCESS SURVEY

2.1 An overall plan of the area is shown on drawing SH11840-SD-007 provided in Appendix B. There are two possible routes to access the proposed development from existing junctions. There is a junction to the north where Springs Road meets the main A635, and a junction to the east where White Walls Lane meets Acres Lane.

Existing Access Via Springs Road

2.2 Springs Road is an old cart track. The original York Stone Slabs still cover most of the track and are heavily rutted. Where the slabs are missing and between the slabs the earth has eroded significantly. This track is only currently passible by farm vehicles.

2.3 The junction is oblique to the A635 and whilst vehicles heading west on the main road would be able to leave safely, vehicles heading east would struggle to make the turn in one movement.

2.4 Vehicles leaving Springs Road have no visibility to the west and limited visibility to the east.

2.5 The A635 is a fast road with a 60 mph speed limit.

2.6 Springs road is a gated bridleway.

2.7 Significant surface water drains over the surface of the track.

2.8 This route does not provide viable access and should be discounted.

Existing Access Via White Walls Lane

2.9 White Walls Lane, which becomes Shay Lane and then Nether Lane is gated farm track and bridleway surfaced with unbound stone.

2.10 In relatively good repair but showing signs of water damage and with significant ponding, the track is passible by 4x4 off-road vehicles and vans.

2.11 There is some evidence of surface water drainage works which has had some success, however in other areas significant degradation has taken place. The damage is however readily repairable using stone or road plainings. Simple regular maintenance of the surface would be sufficient to maintain access.

2.12 Visibility Splays are shown on drawing SH11840-SD-006, provided in Appendix B

2.13 With an ‘x’ distance of 2.4m, visibility at the junction with Acres Lane extends 127m to the southeast towards the junction with Green Gate Road. The junction is visible and any approaching vehicles would be leaving the junction having turned into Acres Lane at a speed lower than 30 mph. Acres Lane serves only two residential properties and quickly narrows to a width of 3.5m. Approach speeds would therefore be low, and a ‘y’ distance of 127m should be adequate.

2.14 With an ‘x’ distance of 2.4m, visibility at the junction with Acres Lane extends 92m to the northwest along Acres Lane to the next bend in the road. The bend is fully visible. This section of Acres Lane varies in width from 3.5 to 4.4m with no road markings. Vehicles traveling in both directions would be straddling the centre of the road and so would be proceeding at reduced speeds with caution. Providing access for only two existing residential properties and with no recreational parking, Acres Lane receives only a low volume of traffic. Whilst the visibility does not meet the minimum standards, given the location and mitigating factors, we consider that the available visibility should be deemed adequate.

2.15 This proposed route is narrow in places but provides opportunity for many passing points. Possible passing point locations are shown on drawing SH11840-SD-006, provided in Appendix B.

2.16 With some minor repair, drainage works and regular maintenance White Walls Lane could provide a suitable access.

3. DOMESTIC DRAINAGE SURVEY

3.1 There are no surface water, foul or combined drains serving the property.

3.2 A survey of the nearby Goodbent Lodge has confirmed that there are no surface water, foul or combined drains in the vicinity of the site. There was no evidence of any septic tank or treatment system for domestic foul sewage. A drainage field is assumed to be the means of disposal. Existing surface water runoff is allowed to run down the moorland, away from the property.

3.3 There are no existing positive drainage connections from either soil or vent pipes from either the farm house or barn.

3.4 We propose to maintain the existing surface water regime of overland runoff.

3.5 We propose a standalone solution for foul water collection. Small domestic sewage treatment plants for up to 6 people are available as an ‘off the shelf’ solution. 4. SERVICES

4.1 There are no existing services to the site or to the nearby Goodbent Lodge.

4.2 Service provision will be small in scale using standalone techniques that are in-keeping with the location. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Photographs BARTIN HOUSE front wall

BARTIN BARN Roof timbers APPENDIX B

Drawings